'C  , 


V a_t. 


£ YVY  - 


«£31K(£g3ig& 


The 

Churches  and  World  Peace 


A Syllabus  of  Topics, 
Problems,  and  Suggestions 
for  Study  Groups 


The  Continuation  Committee 
of  the 

National  Study  Conference  on  the  Churches  and  World  Peace 

Reverend  Sidney  L.  Gulick,  Secretary 
105  East  22nd  Street 
New  York,  N.  Y. 


25  Cents  each 
Ten  for  $1. 


FOREWORD 

“The  National  Study  Conference  on  the  Churches  and  World  Peace”  was  held  in  Washington,  D.  C., 
December  1-3,  1925.  In  preparation  for  the  Conference  three  Commissions  submitted  in  advance  com- 
prehensive and  searching  questions  calculated  to  promote  thought  and  to  stimulate  discussion  of  the  three 
purposes  of  the  Conference: 

To  Study:  The  Christian  Ideals  and  Attitude 
What  the  Churches  Ought  to  Do 

To  Plan:  A Nation-wide  Campaign  of  Education  Through  the  Churches. 


The  Conference 


The  Conference  consisted  of  1 60 
bodies: 


officially  designated  delegates  from  the  following  communions  and  religious 


Northern  Baptist  Convention 
Southern  Baptist  Convention 
Church  of  the  Brethren 
Christian  Church 
Churches  of  God  in  N.  A. 
Congregational  Churches 
Disciples  of  Christ 
Friends  (4  bodies) 

Greek  Orthodox  Church 
Mennonites  (2  bodies) 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South 


Presbyterian  Church  in  the  U.  S.  A. 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
Reformed  Presbyterian  Church 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
Reformed  Church  in  America 
Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
Salvation  Army 
Seventh  Day  Baptist  Churches 
United  Brethren  Church 
United  Presbyterian  Church 
American  Unitarian  Association 
Universalist  Church 


The  Message  to 

Three  full  days  of  intensive  discussion  resulted  in 
(1)  the  “Message  to  the  Churches”  and  (2)  the 
formation  of  the  “Continuation  Committee”,  to  carry 
out  the  educational  program  recommended  in  the 
Message.  The  publication  of  the  Message,  the  con- 
veying of  this  Message  to  all  the  Churches  of  the 


the  Churches 

United  States  for  their  appropriate  actions,  the  in- 
auguration of  the  educational  procedure  recom- 
mended and  the  issuing  of  this  Syllabus  are  the 
first  steps  of  the  Continuation  Committee  in  carry- 
ing out  the  instructions  of  the  Conference. 


The  Purpose  of  this  Syllabus 


The  purpose  of  this  Syllabus  is  to  suggest  in  a 
general  and  unbiased  way,  with  a view  to  promoting 
intelligent  discussion  and  to  securing  effective  action, 
the  vast  range  of  considerations  which  men  of  good- 
will need  to  study.  The  problems  must  be  clearly 
understood  and  the  stupendous  task  and  urgent  duty 
of  abolishing  war  need  to  be  determinedly  under- 
taken. 

It  is  not  expected  that  any  group  will  be  able  to 


deal  with  all  the  questions  here  raised.  The  group 
might  well  choose  for  itself  six  or  eight  major  topics, 
—one  for  each  discussion  period.  It  would  prob- 
ably be  better  to  discuss  a few  topics  carefully  than 
to  attempt  to  cover  too  many  at  the  cost  of  super- 
ficial consideration.  The  group  might  well  agree 
not  to  read  the  Message  until  its  own  discussions 
have  been  practically  completed  and  its  own  “find- 
ings” drafted.  Comparison  with  the  Message  may 
then  be  helpful. 


The  Conduct  of  Discussion  Groups 

In  making  use  of  this  Syllabus  the  adoption  of  the  right  procedure  is  highly  important.  The  following 
suggestions  may  be  helpful: 

1.  The  Chairman  should  secure  and  carefully  nue,  N.  Y.;  $ .25).  Here  is  described  the  distinc- 

study  “The  Why  and  How  of  Group  Discussion”  tive  technique  of  the  discussion  method  and  of 

(H.  S.  Elliott;  Association  Press,  347  Madison  Ave-  “group  thinking”. 

[ 2 ] 


2.  The  success  of  the  discussion  group  depends 
quite  as  much  on  the  cooperative  spirit  of  the  group 
as  on  the  leadership  of  the  Chairman.  “In  group 
discussion,  each  comes  ready  not  only  to  contribute 
his  best  thought  and  experience  on  the  question 
involved,  but  also  to  hear  and  understand  in  turn 
the  viewpoint  of  others.”  Such  a procedure  will 
promote  “group  thinking”. 

3.  The  topic  for  discussion  should  be  a “live 
question”  on  which  there  are  divergent  views. 

4.  The  purpose  of  the  discussion  should  be: 

(1)  To  see  how  far  divergencies  of  view  are 
due  to  a differing  use  of  words,  to  insuffi- 
cient knowledge  of  facts,  and  to  differing 
emphasis  on  principles 

(2)  To  find,  if  possible,  a larger  view  com- 
prising the  truth  in  all  the  varying  view- 
points. 

5.  Constant  effort  should  be  made  by  the  Chair- 
man and  also  by  the  group  to  avoid  mere  random 
talk,  to  exclude  trivialities  or  irrelevancies,  and  to 
prevent  mere  matching  of  wits  by  clever  talkers. 
To  this  end  the  discussion  topic  should  be  clearly 


defined,  the  discussion  should  proceed  from  point  to 
point  in  logical  order,  and  an  effort  should  be  made 
to  frame  the  result  in  “findings”  or  statements  com- 
bining what  all  agree  is  the  larger  and  more  ade- 
quate viewpoint.  In  this  process  the  use  of  a black- 
board will  help  much. 

6.  It  may  happen  that  one  form  of  statement  may 
not  satisfy  all.  Two  or  three  statements  may  be 
needed,  more  or  less  in  contrast  or  even  in  conflict, 
in  order  to  express  the  mind  of  the  minority  as  well 
as  that  of  the  majority. 

7.  In  carrying  on  the  discussion  and  in  framing 
the  “findings”,  the  legalistic  or  parliamentary  pro- 
cedure of  resolutions,  amendments,  tablings,  pre- 
vious questions,  etc.,  is  to  be  avoided.  This  pro- 
cedure is  confusing  and  distracts  attention  from  the 
real  issue.  There  is  a distinct  technique  for  dis- 
cussion groups  (cf.  1 above)  which  the  Chairman 
and,  if  possible,  one  or  two  leaders  should  seek  to 
master  in  advance. 

8.  Remember  that  a discussion  group  is  not  a 
debating  society  in  which  one  side  seeks  to  gain  a 
victory  over  the  other,  but  a group  in  which  all  are 
seeking  together  to  find  the  truth,  to  think  out  a 
problem  of  thought  or  of  conduct. 


Suggested  Discussion  Topics 


Discussion  I. 

What  were  the  teaching  and  the  spirit  of  Jesus 
with  regard  to  peace  and  war?  Was  Jesus  a patriot? 
Was  Jesus  a pacifist?  Can  a pacifist  be  a patriot? 
Or  a patriot  a pacifist? 

Discussion  II. 

Do  or  do  not  the  Churches  of  the  United  States 
have  a duty  and  a responsibility  in  the  program 
to  abolish  war?  In  either  case,  why?  If  the 
Churches  deal  in  any  way  with  the  problems  of 
peace  and  war,  are  they  or  are  they  not  invading 
the  function  of  the  State? 

Discussion  III. 

Is  it  ever  morally  right  to  use  physical  force  in 
the  maintenance  of  right  and  of  justice?  For  an  in- 
dividual? A city?  A nation?  A combination  of 
nations?  Are  the  use  of  violence  and  slaughter  in 
war  the  same  in  principle  as  their  use  by  police? 
Define  the  differences  between  the  principles  and 
procedures  of  a police  force  and  those  of  an  army. 

Discussion  IV. 

What  programs  for  creating  goodwill  between 
nations  might  and  should  the  Churches  of  the  United 
States  adopt  in  their  program  for  the  abolition  of 
war?  Consider  how  far  they  are  practicable. 


Discussion  V. 

Should  or  should  not  the  United  States  promise 
to  submit  every  threatening  dispute,  whatever  its 
nature,  to  some  international  tribunal  for  peaceful 
settlement?  Should  or  should  not  the  United  States 
unite  with  other  nations  in  declaring  aggressive  war 
a crime  and  in  accepting  obligations  to  help  restrain 
or  punish  an  aggressor  nation?  Should  the  United 
States  help  establish  a world  police  system? 

Discussion  VI. 

Should  or  should  not  the  United  States  become 
a member  of  the  League  of  Nations?  If  with  reser- 
vations and  conditions,  what  should  they  be? 

Discussion  VII. 

Is  or  is  not  a warless  world  necessarily  stupid, 
cowardly,  unheroic?  What  programs,  activities  and 
objectives  can  be  held  out  to  young  people  calling 
for  courage,  devotion,  self  sacrifice, — a “moral  equiv- 
alent for  war”? 

Discussion  VIII. 

What  is  your  church, — local,  community,  na- 
tional,—actually  doing  to  help  abolish  war?  Is  it 
doing  its  full  duty?  What  more  can  and  should  it 
do? 

] 


INTRODUCTION 


THE  PRIOR  QUESTION 

There  are  those  who  believe  that  the  Churches  as  Churches  have  nothing  to  do  in  the  matter  of  abolish- 
ing war,  while  other  Christians  hold  that  Churches  as  such  have  inescapable  duties  and  responsibilities  in 
the  program. 


Seven  Differing 

1.  The  Church  is  the  divine  institution  for  pro- 
claiming the  love  of  God  to  sinful  men.  Its  ex- 
clusive duty  is  in  the  realm  of  religion — the 
reconciliation  of  man  to  God.  It  is  not  its  func- 
tion to  deal  with  matters  of  war  and  peace. 
Moreover,  accepting  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures 
as  a part  of  the  Word  of  God,  it  cannot  declare 
war  a crime  and  seek  to  abolish  it,  inasmuch 
as,  according  to  these  Scriptures,  wars  have 
been  waged  by  the  direct  command  of  God 
as  one  way  of  disciplining  unfaithful  nations. 

2.  The  Church,  being  purely  religious,  has  as  a 
Church  nothing  whatever  to  teach  or  to  do  about 
war.  In  its  teaching  function  it  should  indeed 
inculcate  the  universal  principles,  ideals  and 
spirit  of  Jesus,  but  it  should  do  this  without  any 
specific  application  or  reference  to  their  bear- 
ing on  concrete  social,  political  or  international 
relations.  In  proportion  as  men  generally  become 
Christian,  the  whole  social  and  international  order 
will  improve  and  war  will  naturally  disappear. 

3.  The  Church  should  teach  definitely  that 
war  is  wrong  because  contrary  to  the  spirit  and 
teachings  of  Jesus,  but  it  should  not  adopt  or 
teach  any  concrete  proposals  or  advocate  any 
definite  political  policies  or  plans  looking  to  the 
abolition  of  war,  because  such  plans  and  policies 
would  inevitably  go  beyond  the  realm  of  religion 
and  enter  into  that  of  politics. 

4.  The  Church,  as  the  Prophet  of  God  to  Nations 
and  Governments,  as  well  as  to  individuals,  should 
unfold  those  principles  of  the  Gospel  which  enjoin 
national  submission  to  Jesus  Christ,  the  Prince  of 
Peace  and  the  Reigning  King,  as  the  primary  condi- 
tion of  peace  and  prosperity.  It  should  not  only 
frankly  declare  that  war  is  the  great  negation  of 
Christianity  and  the  great  moral  issue  before  the 
world,  but  also  seek  to  educate  its  membership 
and  the  public  in  regard  to  constructive  plans 
and  policies.  It  should  not,  however,  seek  to 


Conceptions 

mass  its  members  in  a political  campaign  in 
support  of  any  given  plans  or  proposals. 

5.  The  Church  as  the  teacher  of  men  and  nations, 
the  divinely  established  organism  for  bringing  in 
the  Kingdom  of  God  on  Earth,  should  not  only  in- 
struct the  people  in  the  principles  of  the  Kingdom 
and  inspire  them  with  its  ideals  and  spirit,  but 
mass  them  in  campaigns  for  constructive  poli- 
cies and  measures  for  permanent  world  peace. 
Yet  it  should  not  go  so  far  as  to  refuse,  in  time 
of  war,  to  support  the  Government  or  have 
anything  to  do  with  the  war. 

6.  The  Church  should  boldly  announce  its  con- 
demnation of  war  and  the  war  system;  it  should, 
nevertheless,  recognize  that  each  individual  is  free  to 
follow  the  judgment  of  his  own  conscience  without 
loss  of  church  membership  or  good  standing,  what- 
ever that  judgment  may  be.  It  should  declare  that 
it  will  never,  as  a Church,  approve  or  support  an- 
other war  nor  assist  in  recruiting  soldiers  from  its 
membership.  It  should  insist  that  every  program 
for  the  abolition  of  war,  though  political  in  one  as- 
pect, is  in  another  profoundly  moral  and  therefore 
the  concern  of  the  Church;  and  it  should,  as  a con- 
sequence, throw  its  entire  power  as  <a  church 
into  training  and  guiding  citizens  intelligently 
and  unitedly  to  seek  the  adoption  by  the  nation 
of  those  constructive  policies  and  programs  by 
which  it  is  believed  war  may  be  abolished. 
Thus  and  thus  alone,  it  is  contended,  can  the  Church 
assert  its  appropriate  moral  leadership  of  the  na- 
tions in  the  overthrow  of  their  greatest  common  foe. 

7.  The  Church  as  such  should  “excommuni- 
cate” war  and  should  teach  that  henceforth  all 
war  of  every  kind  and  for  any  purpose  is  al- 
ways and  absolutely  wrong  and  contrary  to 
God’s  will;  that  it  is  sin,  not  only  for  the  nations 
that  resort  to  it  (on  whichever  side  right  and  justice 
may  lie)  but  also  for  the  individuals  that  participate 
in  it. 


Questions 


1.  Do  these  seven  attitudes  adequately  and  accurately 
state  the  various  positions  taken?  Are  there  other  attitudes? 

2.  How  do  those  who  take  the  first  three  positions  defend 
themselves  against  the  charge  that  they  fail  to  understand 
Christ’s  teaching  regarding  the  Kingdom  of  God  on  Earth, 
for  which  Christians  are  to  work  and  pray? 

3.  How  do  those  who  take  the  other  positions  defend 
themselves  from  the  charge  that  they  are  confusing  religion 


and  politics,  the  functions  of  the  Church  with  those  of  the 
State? 

4.  Try  to  frame  a brief  statement  regarding  the  duty  of 
the  Church — the  local  church,  the  national  Church  and  the 
Church  Universal — in  the  program  to  abolish  war  by 
creating  and  maintaining  the  spirit,  the  institutions  and  the 
procedures  of  peace. 


Note 


The  remainder  of  this  Syllabus  is  based  on  the  assumption  that  the  Churches  as  Churches  do  have  responsibilities  and 
duties  in  regard  to  the  establishment  of  peace  and  the  abolition  of  war. 


[ 4 ] 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  CHRISTIAN  IDEALS  AND  ATTITUDE 
L The  Spirit  and  the  Teaching  of  Jesus 


A genuine  Christian,  in  struggling  with  any  problem,  seeks  to  learn  what  Jesus  taught  and  did  in  regard  to 
it.  If  it  is  clear  that  He  did  not  deal  with  the  specific  problem  in  question,  the  Christian  then  asks  what 
Jesus’  teaching  would  probably  have  been,  judging  from  His  spirit  and  the  general  principles  that  underlie 
His  Gospel  and  His  entire  life.  What  then  was  the  teaching  of  Jesus  with  regard  to  peace  and  war,  direct 
or  implicit? 


1.  In  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  was  Jesus  think- 
ing of  the  relations  of  nations?  If  not,  what  bear- 
ing, if  any,  does  the  Sermon  have  on  the  problems 
of  peace  and  war? 

2.  In  Matthew  5:44  (Love  your  Enemies)  and 
5:39  (Resist  not  him  that  is  evil)  is  Jesus  teaching 
the  doctrine  of  absolute  non-resistance?  If  not,  how 
should  the  teaching  of  these  passages  be  paraphrased 
in  order  to  bring  out  clearly  just  what  he  meant? 

3.  Does  the  record  of  Christ’s  driving  the  money 
changers  out  of  the  temple  (Matthew  21:12-13) 
modify  our  understanding  of  His  teaching  regarding 
the  use  of  force? 

4.  Do  the  burning  words  of  Jesus  in  denouncing 
the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  (Matthew  23:13-33) 
throw  any  light  on  the  right  attitude  of  modern 
Christians  toward  instigators  of  national  and  racial 
passions  and  conflicts? 

5.  Just  what  did  Jesus  mean  when  He  told  His 
disciples  that  if  any  one  did  not  have  a sword  he 
should  buy  one  (Luke  22:36),  even  if  it  might  be 
necessary  to  sell  his  cloak  for  the  purpose?  Is  this 
passage  correctly  used  in  proving  that  Jesus  jus- 
tifies war?  If  not,  why? 

6.  In  His  declaration  (Matthew  10:34)  that  He 
came  “not  to  send  peace,  but  a sword”  was  Jesus 
thinking  of  war?  Just  what  was  He  teaching?  Are 
interpreters  justified  in  using  this  passage  to  prove 
that  Jesus  was  not  a “pacifist”? 

7.  In  declaring  that  “all  they  that  take  the  sword 
shall  perish  with  the  sword”  was  Jesus  intending  to 


teach  His  disciples  a universal  lesson  in  regard  to 
war?  If  not,  what  was  He  seeking  to  inculcate? 

8.  Did  Jesus  ever  face,  directly  or  indirectly,  the 
question  of  a national  uprising  of  His  people  against 
the  rule  of  Rome?  What  passages  in  the  Gospel 
throw  light  on  this  question?  On  what  grounds  did 
He  oppose  such  an  uprising? 

9.  Did  Jesus’  reply  to  Pilate  (“If  my  kingdom 
were  of  this  world,  then  would  my  servants  fight.” 
John  18:36)  teach  or  imply  that  His  disciples  should 
never  fight  for  any  cause? 

10.  When  Jesus  taught  His  disciples  to  pray  that 
the  Kingdom  of  God  might  come  on  earth  as  it  was 
in  heaven  (Matthew  6:10)  and  that  only  they  who 
do  the  will  of  the  Father  shall  enter  into  His  King- 
dom, did  He  include  in  His  thought  the  duty  of 
Christians  to  work  for  world  peace  and  for  the  aboli- 
tion of  war?  If  not,  do  these  teachings  bear  in  any 
way  on  the  problem  of  our  study?  If  so,  in  what 
way? 

11.  Do  some  of  the  specific  teachings  and  acts  of 
Jesus  appear  to  be  at  variance  with  His  underlying 
spirit  and  purpose?  If  so,  how  may  they  be  recon- 
ciled? If  not  reconcilable,  which  should  prevail? 

12.  What  is  to  be  said  of  the  contention  that,  in 
carrying  out  the  spirit  of  love  and  service,  it  may 
sometimes  be  necessary  to  resort  even  to  war? 

13.  Is  it  possible  to  summarize  briefly  just  what 
the  teachings  and  underlying  principles  of  Jesus  were 
as  they  bear  on  the  modern  problem  facing  His  dis- 
ciples in  regard  to  peace  and  war? 


II.  Some  Special  Problems 


In  order  to  help  clarify  the  situation  and  to  make  the  problems  stand  out  distinctly  in  all  their  difficulty 
and  importance,  five  groups  of  questions  may  well  receive  special  attention. 


A.  The  Use  of  Military  Force 


Questions  are  raised  today  regarding  the  moral  right  to  the  use  of  physical  force,  even  in  self-defense  against 
aggression.  A few  questions  will  suggest  the  points  at  issue. 


1.  What  has  been  the  historic  attitude  of  the 
Church  in  regard  to  war?  Before  Constantine? 
Since?  How  shall  we  explain  the  change?  Is  it 
justifiable  on  Christian  principles? 

2.  Does  the  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament  in 


regard  to  war  afford  a rational  and  moral  basis  for 
modern  war? 

3.  Is  an  individual  entitled,  under  the  moral  law 
and  on  Christian  principles,  to  defend  his  life  or 
the  honor  and  life  of  his  family  against  a robber 


[ 5 ] 


or  murderer?  Should  he  resist  the  aggressor  even 
to  the  extent,  if  necessary,  of  killing  him? 

4.  What  bearing  on  this  question  has  Jesus’  teach- 
ing (Matthew  5:39)  regarding  non-resistance? 

5.  Is  a nation  entitled,  under  the  universal  moral 
law,  to  resist  aggressor  individuals  and  nations,  even 
to  the  extent  of  destroying  their  property  and  tak- 
ing their  lives?  If  so,  why?  If  not,  why? 

6.  In  defense  of  the  helpless  and  in  the  main- 
tenance of  justice  is  a Christian  individual  or  nation 
entitled  to  use  force,  even  to  the  taking  of  life  when 


necessary,  in  restraining  a brutal  bully  or  a “mad 
dog  nation”  from  carrying  out  murderous  purposes? 
In  either  case,  why? 

7.  Is  a nation  that  really  needs  more  territory  for 
its  people  or  more  economic  resources  for  its  in- 
dustrial enterprises  entitled  to  secure  them  at  the 
cost  of  coercion  and  even,  if  necessary,  of  war?  In 
other  words,  is  a nation  ever  justified  in  aggression 
against  another  nation?  Why? 

8.  Is  the  use  of  an  international  police  force 
equivalent  to  war?  Give  reasons  for  and  against. 


B.  The  Individual  and  the  State 

The  mutual  relations,  rights  and  duties  of  the  individual  and  the  State  have  from  ancient  times  proved  to 
be  perplexing  questions  for  all  thinkers. 


1.  Is  the  authority  of  the  State  over  an  individ- 
ual member  absolute  and  unlimited?  If  it  is  lim- 
ited, by  what  authority  or  principles? 

2.  Has  the  individual  certain  essential  rights  as 
over  against  the  State?  If  so,  what  are  they?  How 
may  they  be  discovered  and  enforced? 

3.  Is  or  is  not  the  individual  as  a soldier  under 
orders  morally  right  in  doing  in  time  of  war  what  it 
would  be  morally  wrong  for  him  to  do  under  ordi- 
nary conditions?  Why? 

4.  Has  the  State  the  moral  right  to  conscript  the 
individual  and  compel  him  to  participate  in  war  in 

C.  The  Church  and  the  State 

The  question  of  the  respective  spheres  of  activity 
thoughtful  men. 

1.  Is  the  distinction  between  the  Church  and  the 
State,  as  dealing  respectively  with  matters  religious 
and  secular,  adequate?  If  not,  why? 

2.  Are  there  matters  in  which  the  State  has  the 
unquestioned  right  to  control  or  limit  the  teachings 
and  activities  of  the  Church?  Specify. 

3.  Are  there  matters  in  which  the  Church  has 
the  unquestioned  right  to  control  or  limit  the  poli- 
cies and  activities  of  the  State? 

4.  When  Jesus  stated  that  the  Jews  should  “Ren- 
der therefore  unto  Caesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar’s 
and  unto  God  the  things  that  are  God’s”  (Matthew 
22:21),  was  He  thinking  of  the  relations  of  State 


violation  of  the  dictates  of  his  conscience?  If  so, 
on  what  grounds? 

5.  Can  a Christian  who  believes  that  personal 
participation  in  war  is  absolutely  forbidden  by  the 
principles  and  teachings  of  Jesus,  rightly  participate 
in  “works  of  mercy  and  relief”  by  which  the  war 
is  made  less  intolerable  and  also  possibly  prolonged? 
Give  reasons  for  and  against. 

6.  Can  a Christian  who  is  a thorough-going  “paci- 
fist” pay  taxes  and  otherwise  support  a Government 
that  is  making  vast  war  preparations?  In  either 
case,  why? 


and  authority  of  Church  and  State  has  long  perplexed 

and  Church  or  of  a foreign  ruler  and  religion?  If 
the  latter,  does  this  text  throw  any  light  on  the 
true  relations  of  Church  and  State?  If  so,  what? 

5.  Is  the  State  to  be  regarded  by  Christians  as  a 
human  invention  and  institution  without  divine  sanc- 
tions or  authority,  and  the  Church  as  a divine  in- 
stitution with  superhuman  authority  as  it  faces  both 
the  individual  and  the  State?  If  so,  on  what 
grounds?  If  not,  on  what  grounds? 

6.  If  the  mutual  rights  and  authority  of  Church 
and  State,  of  religion  and  government,  are  not  clear, 
how  should  the  Churches  proceed  to  clarify  the  situ- 
ation? 


D.  National  Sovereignty  and  International  Relations 

In  thinking  on  the  nature  of  the  State,  some  extremists  have  declared  that  it  is  a “natural”  entity  of  power, 
possessed  of  absolute  sovereignty  and  unlimited  authority,  not  only  over  its  own  members  but  in  its  dealings 
with  other  nations.  It  is  the  might  of  the  State  that  creates  its  right;  briefly,  “might  makes  right”.  Its 
aggressions  against  neighbor  States  are  right  if  it  has  the  power  to  carry  them  out.  A weak  State  has  no 
inherent  rights  against  a powerful  State.  It  is  the  natural  right  of  strong  States  to  swallow  up  weak  States 
just  as  it  is  the  natural  right  of  big  fish  to  eat  up  little  fish.  A State  is  limited  in  what  it  may  do  only  by 
its  might.  This  idea  of  absolute  and  unlimited  national  sovereignty  has  been  held  by  not  a few  thinkers  in 
many  lands. 

1.  Are  there  Americans  who  hold  this  view  of  2.  In  the  judgment  of  the  Churches,  is  a gnation 

absolute  national  sovereignty?  an  absolutely  free,  unlimited,  sovereign  entity,  at 


liberty  to  do  what  it  will  and  can  to  other  nations? 
If  not,  by  what  principles  is  its  sovereignty  limited? 
What  should  the  Churches  teach? 

3.  Is  a nation  merely  a being  of  “power”  and 
therefore  under  no  moral  obligations?  If  it  is  un- 
der moral  obligations,  what  are  they? 

4.  Is  a nation  competent  to  be  sole  judge  of  its 


acts,  rights  and  duties  in  relation  to  other  nations? 
If  not,  who  are  competent? 

5.  Do  the  foregoing  questions  and  considerations 
throw  any  light  on  the  duties  of  States  and  Govern- 
ments to  cooperate  in  finding  and  maintaining  inter- 
national right  and  justice,  in  removing  the  causes  of 
war  and  in  establishing  the  institutions  and  proce- 
dures essential  for  world  peace? 


E.  Participation  or  Non-Participation  in  War 

We  now  take  up  the  personal  question  regarding  the  duty  of  a Christian  in  case  his  country  becomes  in- 
volved in  war; — should  he  or  should  he  not  participate?  If  he  should,  on  what  grounds?  If  he  should  not, 
on  what  grounds? 

It  is  assumed  in  this  section  that  the  person  whose  duty  is  being  studied  is  a real  Christian  and  also  a 
loyal  patriot.  It  is  also  assumed  (although  at  present  it  is  far  from  being  the  case)  that  long  before  the  out- 
break of  war  the  Christian  patriot  has  made  vigorous  and  continuous  effort  on  behalf  of  peace;  that  his 
church  and  denomination  have  taken  more  or  less  vigorous  part  in  the  program  to  outlaw  and  banish  war. 
He  has  urged  the  adoption  by  his  country  of  those  international  principles,  policies  and  procedures  which 
he  believed  would  prevent  war.  War  has  nevertheless  come.  What,  then,  is  his  duty  as  a citizen  and  as  a 
Christian?  Under  these  conditions,  has  the  Church  as  such  a duty  to  perform? 


(A)  The  First  Alternative — Participation 

The  Christian  patriot  may  decide  that,  though  war  is  the  most  terrible  calamity  that  can  come  to  his 
country,  and  though  as  a Christian  and  a patriot  he  hates  war  with  absolute  hatred,  with  a hatred  not  less 
than  that  of  a thoroughgoing  “pacifist”,  nevertheless  it  is  his  duty,  both  as  a Christian  and  as  a patriot,  to 
stand  by  his  country  and  to  help  it  if  possible  to  win  the  victory.  The  reasons  given  for  this  decision  may 
differ  greatly  with  different  individuals,  but  they  may  perhaps  be  summarized  in  the  following  paragraphs: 


1.  Because  this  is  a war  in  self-defense.  It  was 
the  enemy  that  threw  down  the  challenge,  made  the 
attack,  committed  the  unforgivable  crime,  and  there 
was  no  course  left  in  honor  but  to  accept  the  chal- 
lenge and  punish  the  foe. 

2.  Because  the  Government  honestly  and  sincere- 
ly made  every  effort  to  avert  war.  It  offered  many 
extraordinary  concessions.  It  even  offered  to  sub- 
mit the  dispute  to  arbitration.  The  enemy,  how- 
ever, believing  it  could  win  by  war,  refused  to  listen 
to  any  plan  that  might  avert  it  and  wantonly  at- 
tacked us. 

3.  Because  the  real  interests  of  the  entire  world — 
moral,  political  and  economic, — will  be  best  con- 
served if  we  win  and  the  enemy  is  defeated.  Our 
victory  will  help  to  end  the  war-system  and  estab- 
lish honor,  justice  and  righteousness,  while  victory 
by  the  enemy  would  but  perpetuate  the  reign  of 
violence  and  wrong. 

4.  Because  the  mutual  relations  of  the  individual 
and  his  people  constitute  such  a unique  solidarity 
that  it  is  impossible  for  either  to  exist  without  the 
other.  The  nation  is  an  organic  unity.  It  is  not 
made  up  of  the  mere  aggregation  of  its  citizens,  as  a 
heap  of  sand  is  made  up  of  the  aggregation  of  its 
sand  particles.  It  is  rather  a living  organism,  an 
essential  unity,  in  which  all  live  in  and  by  and  for 
all.  The  very  existence  and  even  the  nature  of  the 
individual  are  due  to  the  existence  and  nature  of  his 
people.  There  are,  therefore,  mutual  obligations 


which  neither  is  at  liberty  to  repudiate.  If  repudi- 
ated in  words  and  in  attempted  acts,  the  relations 
and  obligations  still  remain. 

5.  Because  when  war  comes  the  very  existence 
of  the  nation  is  the  issue,  and  when  this  issue  arises 
every  other  issue  disappears.  Liberties  and  privi- 
leges which  the  individual  enjoyed  as  a matter  of 
right  in  times  of  peace,  disappear  in  times  of  war. 
Questions  of  right  and  wrong  in  the  transactions  and 
relations  that  preceded  the  outbreak  of  war  are  now 
irrelevant.  Freedom  of  speech,  assembly  and  travel 
are  no  longer  possible.  The  entire  energy  of  the 
nation  must  be  given  to  the  one  supreme  effort  to 
maintain  self  existence.  No  individual  citizen,  there- 
fore, has  the  right  to  choose  whether  or  not  he  will 
support  his  nation.  Refusal  is  equivalent  to  taking 
sides  with  the  enemy.  Refusal  is  treason  and  de- 
serves only  one  result — death. 

6.  Because  every  principle  of  loyalty  to  Christ 
and  to  country  requires  the  Christian  and  the  patriot 
to  serve  to  the  uttermost  and  to  give  even  life  if 
need  be  for  those  whom  he  loves. 

7.  Because  the  issues  involved  in  the  war,  and 
the  circumstances  under  which  it  took  place,  are 
such  that  the  fundamental  principles  and  ideals  of 
Jesus  are  imperiled  and  can  be  maintained  only  by 
war.  Loyalty  to  Christ,  therefore,  impels  the  Chris- 
tian to  support  his  country  in  the  war;  he  has  no 
other  option. 


[ 7 ] 


Questions 


1.  What  other  reasons  may  be  given  by  a Christian 
patriot  for  participating  in  a war  in  which  his  country  is 
involved  ? 

2.  Do  any  of  the  reasons  given  above  for  personal 
participation  appeal  to  you  as  not  valid?  Why?  Would 
you  state  in  some  other  form  your  reasons  for  participation? 
Are  some  of  the  reasons  valid?  Which?  Why? 

3.  In  advance  of  the  occurrence  of  war,  has  a Christian 
patriot  the  moral  right  to  sign  a solemn  pledge  that  under 
no  circumstances  whatever  will  he  ever  participate  in  any 
war?  If  not,  why? 

4.  Is  or  is  not  a Christian  patriot  entitled  to  determine 
his  attitude  toward  a war  in  which  his  country  is  already 


engaged  by  consideration  of  the  circumstances  that  produced 
it?  In  either  case,  why? 

5.  When  war  takes  place,  are  all  questions  of  right  and 
wrong  regarding  the  causes  of  the  war  irrelevant?  Do  all 
rights  of  an  individual  disappear  in  time  of  war?  If  not, 
what  rights  remain? 

6.  Is  it  right  or  wise  for  a church,  local  or  national,  to 
take  action  as  a church  for  or  against  participation?  In 
either  case,  why? 

7.  Is  the  question  of  responsibility  for  war  (war-guilt) 
irrelevant  to  the  Christian  patriot?  If  so,  why?  If  not, 
why? 


(B)  The  Second  Alternative— Non-Participation 

The  Christian  patriot  may  decide  that  although  he  has  made  every  possible  effort  to  persuade  his  country 
to  adopt  those  courses  of  action  which  would  have  averted  the  coming  of  war,  now  that  war  has  nevertheless 
come,  it  is  his  Christian  and  also  his  patriotic  duty  to  refuse  to  participate  in  it  in  any  way  whatever.  The 
reasons  given  may  be  one  or  more  of  the  following  affirmations. 


1.  Because  the  Government  in  resorting  to  war 
is  clearly  in  the  wrong. 

(1)  It  has  followed  for  many  years  a policy  of 
selfish  disregard  of  the  interests  of  other 
lands 

(2)  It  has  steadily  filled  its  neighbors  with  sus- 
picion of  its  motives  and  fear  of  its  purposes 
because  of  its  ever  enlarging  program  of  mili- 
tary preparedness 

(3)  It  has  refused  to  cooperate  with  other  na- 
tions in  general  plans  and  measures  for  the 
peaceful  settlement  of  all  disputes  and  the 
outlawing  of  every  war 

(4)  It  has  refused  to  submit  the  particular  dis- 
pute involved  in  this  war  to  some  competent 
impartial  tribunal,  on  the  false  assumption 
that  a nation  is  competent  to  be  its  own 
plaintiff,  sheriff,  witnesses,  jury,  judge  and 
executioner  in  a matter  involving  its  interests 

(5)  It  is  in  fact  the  aggressor. 

2.  Because  the  Government  should  have  followed 
the  spirit  of  Jesus  and  the  methods  of  peace  to  the 
end.  It  did,  indeed,  reduce  its  military  and  naval 
preparations  to  some  degree.  It  did  cooperate  with 
the  nations  in  establishing  a World  Court  of  Justice 
and  other  tribunals  and  procedures  for  settling  every 
dispute  by  methods  of  law,  arbitration  and  concilia- 
tion. It  did,  in  general,  adopt  conciliatory  policies 
and  it  did  offer  to  submit  the  dispute  in  question  to 
the  World  Court  of  Justice  or  to  arbitration.  But 
when  the  enemy,  accepting  none  of  our  efforts  for 
a peaceful  settlement,  wantonly  attacked  us,  even 
then  the  Government  should  not  have  opposed  force 
to  force.  It  should  have  displayed  the  spirit  of 
Jesus  to  the  end,  and  in  the  end  its  moral  triumph 
would  have  brought  the  beginning  of  a war-free 
world. 


3.  Because  it  is  impossible  to  know  the  full  truth 
regarding  the  cause  of  the  war.  All  modern  govern- 
ments and  big  business  interests  conceal  important 
facts,  release  “inspired”  but  misleading  alleged  news, 
and  make  it  impossible  for  the  private  citizen  to 
know  the  justice  or  the  guilt  in  any  given  war.  War 
makers  in  each  land  represent  their  own  country  as 
the  victim  of  wrong  and  appeal  to  the  nation’s  pride 
and  patriotism  to  fight  for  the  alleged  cause  of  jus- 
tice, liberty  and  national  honor. 

4.  Because  the  only  way  by  which  finally  to  bring 
the  nation  and  the  world  to  abandon  war  is  for  mul- 
titudes of  individuals  in  many  lands  to  refuse  to  par- 
ticipate, even  at  the  cost,  if  necessary,  of  sacrificing 
their  lives  in  the  cause. 

5.  Because  non-participation  is  in  reality  the  high- 
est form  of  patriotism — for  the  non-participator  is 
seeking  for  his  country  a spirit  and  a method  in 
dealing  with  international  relations,  problems  and 
disputes  that  are  essentially  right  and  in  the  end  far 
more  profitable  even  economically  than  the  method 
and  the  spirit  of  war. 

6.  Because  war  is  intrinsically,  absolutely  and  al- 
ways wrong.  War  violates  every  Christian  ideal  and 
principle.  It  disregards  the  plain  teachings  as  well 
as  the  spirit  of  Jesus.  A Christian  who  participates 
in  war  personally  repudiates  his  Master  and  his 
Master’s  teaching  regarding 

(1)  Universal  human  brotherhood 

(2)  The  responsibilities  of  universal  love,  com- 
passion and  mercy 

(3)  The  obligations  of  sincerity  and  truthfulness 

(4)  The  privileges  of  unselfish  service 

(5)  The  intrinsic  value  of  human  life 

(6)  The  sacredness  of  personality. 


[ 8 ] 


War  is,  therefore,  the  supreme  collective  sin  of 
humanity.  The  individual  Christian  should  have  no 
part  in  it.  The  only  possible  Christian  attitude 


toward  war  is  absolute  hatred  of  it,  opposition  to  it, 
and  refusal  to  support  it  or  participate  in  it  in  any 
way  whatever. 


Questions 


1.  What  other  reasons  are  actually  given  by  those  who 
advocate  non-participation  ? 

2.  Of  the  reasons  given  above  for  non-participation,  which 
appeal  to  you  as  valid?  Which  appear  to  you  to  be  fal- 
lacious? Why? 

3.  Can  a man  be  morally  right  in  refusing  to  support  his 
country  in  a war  in  which  he  judges  the  enemy  to  be  clearly 
the  aggressor  and  his  own  Government  in  the  right?  If  so, 
why?  If  not,  why? 


Suggestive 


THE  EIEIiE  AND  UNIVERSAL  PEACE,  G.  H.  Gilbert; 
1914;  Funk  and  Wagnalls  Company,  New  York. 

WHAT  DID  JESUS  REALLY  TEACH  ABOUT  WAR?, 

Edward  Leigh  Pell;  1917;  Fleming  H.  Revell  Company,  New 
York. 

CHRIST  AND  WAR,  William  E.  Wilson;  1913;  James  Clarke 
and  Company,  London. 

CHRIST  AND  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR,  Sermons  by  Twelve 
British  Church  Leaders;  1917;  The  Pilgrim  Press,  Boston, 
Mass. 

CHRIST  OR  NAPOLEON — WHICH?,  Peter  Ainslie;  1915; 
Fleming  H.  Revell  Company,  New  York. 

WAR  INCONSISTENT  WITH  THE  RELIGION  OP 
JESUS  CHRIST,  David  Low  Dodge;  1905;  Ginn  and  Com- 
pany, Boston,  Mass. 

CHRIST  OR  MARS?,  Will  Irwin;  1923;  D.  Appleton  and 
Company,  New  York. 

IS  CHRISTIANITY  PRACTICABLE?,  William  Adams 
Brown;  1916;  Charles  Scribner’s  Sons,  New  York. 

CHRISTIANITY  AND  THE  STATE,  S.  Parkes  Cadman; 
1924;  The  Macmillan  Company,  New  York. 


4.  Does  the  phrase  “My  country,  may  she  ever  be  right, 
but  right  or  wrong,  my  country”  express  the  true  spirit  of 
patriotism?  If  so,  why?  If  not,  why? 

5.  Does  an  individual  citizen  have  the  right,  after  declara- 
tion of  war,  to  reject  the  judgment  of  his  government?  If 
not,  why?  If  so,  why? 

6.  In  dealing  with  these  questions  would  it  help  to  lay 
down  definitions  of  patriotism  and  loyalty?  If  so,  how 
should  they  be  defined? 


Literature 


WHAT  THE  WAR  IS  TEACHING,  Charles  E.  Jefferson; 
1916;  Fleming  H.  Revell  Company,  New  York. 

WHY  NOT  TRY  CHRISTIANITY?,  Samuel  Zane  Batten; 
1923;  George  H.  Doran  Company,  New  York. 

WHY  CHRISTIANITY  DID  NOT  PREVENT  WAR, 

Isaac  J.  Lansing;  1918;  George  H.  Doran  Company,  New  York. 

WAR  AND  THE  SOUL,  R.  J.  Campbell;  1916;  Dodd,  Mead 
and  Company,  New  York. 

THE  CHURCH  IN  TIME  OP  WAR,  A.  F.  Winnington 
Ingram;  1915;  The  Young  Churchman  Company,  Milwaukee, 
Wis. 

THE  ABOLITION  OP  WAR,  Sherwood  Eddy  and  Kirby 
Page;  1924;  George  H.  Doran  Company,  New  York. 

CHRISTIAN  INTERNATIONALISM,  William  P.  Merrill; 
1919;  The  Macmillan  Company,  New  York. 

WAR  ABOLITION,  Harry  P.  Gibson;  1925;  Robson  and  Adee, 
Schenectady,  New  York. 

TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OP  JESUS,  Vladimir 
G.  Simkhovitch;  1921;  The  Macmillan  Company,  New  York. 

CHURCH  AND  COLLEGE  DENOUNCE  PACIFIST 
PLEDGE;  1924;  The  National  Civic  Federation,  New  York. 


[ 9 ] 


CHAPTER  II 

WHAT  THE  CHURCHES  OUGHT  TO  DO 


It  is  assumed  in  this  Syllabus  that  all  Christians  desire  to  have  the  menace  of  war  removed  and  the  entire 
war-system  of  the  nations  completely  abolished.  Essential  to  this  end  is  the  realization  that  the  existing  war- 
system  of  the  nations  is  in  principle  a pagan  institution,  the  method  of  savages  and  bullies  for  securing  group 
ends,  regardless  of  the  rights  and  sufferings  of  others.  To  abolish  war  the  nations  must  Christianize  their 
relations,  their  conception  of  national  rights  and  duties,  and  their  procedures  in  maintaining  even  their  un- 
questioned rights.  They  must  definitely  and  determinedly  set  themselves  to  devise  and  establish  the  world 
institutions  essential  for  world  justice,  for  the  peaceful  settlement  of  all  disputes  and  for  cooperation  in  peace 
as  a substitute  for  war  and  preparations  for  war.  Permanent  world  peace  can  never  be  established  on  any- 
thing less  than  a reconstructed  world-order  based  on  the  principles  and  ideals  of  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

The  firm  establishment  of  world  peace  as  an  effective  system  of  international  relations  is,  therefore,  one  of 
the  essential  objectives  of  the  Christian  Church.  The  questions  to  be  considered  in  this  chapter  concern  the 
concrete  proposals  and  programs  by  which  it  is  hoped  to  secure  this  end.  More  explicitly,  what  international 
policies  should  the  Churches  adopt,  teach  and  advocate,  looking  toward  a warless  world? 

I.  Programs  for  Creating  Goodwill 

The  creation  and  general  adoption  of  a world-peace  system  in  place  of  the  existing  war-system  is,  in  the 
final  analysis,  a matter  of  developing  in  the  minds  and  hearts  of  the  nations  a new  spirit:  a spirit  of  mutual 
consideration  and  respect,  and  a willingness  to  see  the  defects  and  wrong  doings  of  one’s  own  nation. 

This  part  of  the  constructive  program  for  world  peace  is  in  no  sense  political ; it  is  distinctively  a procedure 
in  education  and  falls  without  question  within  the  scope  of  the  teaching  duty  of  the  Churches.  This  pro- 
gram has  been  appropriately  called  the  “disarming  of  the  mind”.  Positively  it  seeks  to  create  goodwill  and 
confidence  between  nations  and  races. 


Questions 


1.  Do  verbal  professions  of  friendship  between  nations 
and  governments  have  any  value  in  producing  mutual  good- 
will? If  so,  give  reasons. 

2.  Were  the  return  to  China  of  the  Boxer  Indemnity  and 
to  Japan  of  the  Shimonoseki  Indemnity,  and  the  gift  of 
millions  for  famine,  fire,  flood  and  earthquake  relief  in 
Russia,  Europe  and  the  Orient  of  any  positive  result  in 
international  relations?  Can  you  prove  your  belief  by  con- 
crete illustrations? 

3.  What,  if  any,  beneficial  effects  on  international  rela- 
tions have  been  produced  by  foreign  missions,  aid  to  foreign 
educational  institutions,  fellowships  and  scholarships  for 
foreign  students,  the  exchange  of  professors,  and  friendly 
treatment  of  foreigners  dwelling  in  our  midst?  Give  specific 
instances. 

4.  What  are  the  advantages  of  the  “project  method”  of 


training  in  international  goodwill  over  the  usual  methods  of 
lectures,  study  classes  and  reading?  Should  or  should  not 
the  Churches  promote  special  studies  in  regard  to  those 
nations  with  whom  our  relations  are  more  or  less  strained 
— Mexico,  Russia,  Japan?  How  can  they  do  this  most 
effectively  ? 

5.  What  is  your  local  church  doing  in  these  practical  ways? 
Does  it  compare  in  energy  and  financial  expenditures  with 
what  it  does  to  meet  its  own  wants — music,  architecture, 
entertainments,  etc? 

6.  What  is  your  communion  doing  along  these  lines?  What 
more  can  and  should  it  do? 

7.  How  far  do  international  and  inter-racial  activities 
promote  understanding  and  goodwill — e.g.,  world  conferences, 
the  Olympic  games,  the  League  of  Nations,  etc.?  Should  or 
should  they  not  be  fostered  because  of  these  by-products? 


II.  Programs  for  the  World  Cooperation  of  Churches 

At  the  outbreak  of  the  world  war  the  churches  of  Christendom  were  severely  condemned  for  their  failure 
to  prevent  the  war  and  also  for  such  complete  identification  of  religion  and  patriotism  that  the  Christians 
in  each  land  were  virtually  worshipping  tribal  gods. 

Many  have  felt  that  the  criticisms  were  justified  and  that  the  situation  disclosed  is  intolerable.  They  have 
accordingly  sought  to  bring  the  Churches  of  different  lands  into  relation  with  one  another,  in  the  hope  that 
such  a world  cooperation  of  Christians  and  of  Churches  might  develop  as  would  bridge  the  chasm  between 
nations,  secure  mutual  understanding  and  goodwill  across  national  frontiers,  and  become  a powerful  agency  for 
international  justice,  for  national  cooperation  and  for  world  peace. 

It  is  urged  that  in  times  of  international  strain  and  irritation  the  Christians  in  each  land  will  work  for 
peace  with  more  zeal  if  the  Churches  are  in  close  contact  and  especially  if  they  mutually  know  that  fellow- 
Christians  in  other  lands  are  also  vigorously  working  for  the  same  ends.  Even  in  times  of  war,  it  is  urged 
that  Churches  should  have  freedom  for  intercourse,  under  proper  precautions,  and  that  such  freedom  would 
have  many  beneficial  results,  in  ameliorating  the  passions,  in  preventing  hatreds  and  possibly  in  shortening 
the  war. 


Questions 


1.  Does  the  ideal  suggested  above  have  elements  of  value 
for  our  general  program  in  working  for  a world-peace- 
system  and  for  preventing  war?  Specify. 

2.  Would  the  nations  be  more  likely  to  agree  on  world 
peace  programs  if  the  Churches  within  the  various  nations 
could  agree  on  and  work  for  the  same  concrete  objectives? 
If  not,  why? 

3.  What  steps,  if  any,  have  the  Churches  already  taken 
in  these  directions? 

4.  What  influences,  if  any,  for  world  peace,  have  been 
exerted  by  such  world  gatherings  as  the  Pan-Presbyterian, 
Pan-Methodist  and  Pan-Anglican  World  Assemblies?  By 
the  Edinburgh  Missionary  Conference?  By  the  relations 
of  Mission  Churches  in  non-Christian  lands  to  their  respect- 
ive supporting  Churches  in  Christian  lands? 

5.  What,  if  anything,  has  been  accomplished  for  world 


peace  by  the  World  Alliance  for  International  Friendship 
Through  the  Churches?  By  the  Universal  Christian  Con- 
ference on  Life  and  Work  held  at  Stockholm? 

6.  Have  significant  contributions  toward  international  un- 
derstanding, goodwill  and  peace  been  made  by  such  Chris- 
tian organizations  as  the  Young  Men’s  Christian  Associa- 
tion, the  Young  Women’s  Christian  Association,  the  World’s 
Sunday  School  Association,  the  Federations  or  Councils  of 
Churches  in  various  lands?  Specify. 

7.  Do  such  international  contacts  and  cooperation  run 
the  risk  of  weakening  patriotism  or  of  bringing  harm  to 
the  countries  involved?  If  so,  how?  Is  there  need  of  guard- 
ing against  such  possible  dangers?  How? 

8.  How  may  these  international  contacts  and  relations  of 
Churches  and  Christian  organizations  be  made  more  effective 
for  the  specific  programs  for  world  peace?  Specify  as  con- 
cretely as  possible. 


III.  Programs  for  the  World  Cooperation  of  States 

We  propose  now  to  consider  rapidly  the  various  concrete  plans  for  the  cooperation  of  Governments,  the 
universal  adoption  of  which  is  believed  by  many  to  be  essential  to  the  overthrow  of  the  war-system  and  war 
psychology  of  the  nations  and  to  the  enthronement  of  justice  and  law,  right,  reason  and  goodwill  in  the 
life  of  the  world.  In  connection  with  each  of  these  plans  we  need  to  ask  what  the  attitude  of  the  Churches 
should  be. 

Throughout  history  preparations  for  war,  threats  of  war,  and  acts  of  war  have  constituted  the  one  final 
resort  for  nations  in  the  settlement  of  their  disputes.  If  war  is  really  to  be  abolished  it  is  evident  that  the 
nations  must  devise,  and  cooperate  in  creating  and  maintaining,  a substitute  method  of  settlement.  Several 
proposals  and  achievements  along  this  line  are  now  before  the  world. 


A.  The  League  of  Nations 

The  League  of  Nations  consists  of  fifty- five  gov- 
ernments which  have  agreed,  in  a remarkable  Cove- 
nant, to  abstain  from  war  and  to  submit  all  their 
disputes  to  peaceful  settlement  by  the  use  of  various 
methods. 

This  League  of  Nations  is  the  first  instance  in 
history  of  multitudes  of  nations  entering  into  a 
league,  the  declared  object  of  which  is  universal 
peace.  Its  activities  cover  a wide  range,  including 


the  industrial,  hygienic,  social  and  moral  welfare  of 
all  nations  and  races. 

Except  for  Russia,  Germany,  Mexico  and  the 
United  States,  all  the  important  nations  of  the  world 
are  members  of  the  League. 

The  League  is  in  process  of  development.  It  is 
dealing  with  world  problems,  determining  world  his- 
tory, and  developing  international  law  at  a rapid 
rate. 


Questions 


1.  Is  the  League  actually  helping  to  solve  difficulties  be- 
tween nations?  Is  it  actually  providing  other  methods  than 
war  for  the  settlement  of  disputes?  Name  some  instances. 

2.  What  effect,  if  any — good  or  bad — is  the  League  having 
on  the  development  of  world  consciousness,  world  standards, 
world  conscience  and  world  goodwill? 

3.  What  responsible  proposals  are  there,  if  any,  for  an 
Association  of  Nations  as  a substitute  for  the  League? 
What  are  its  prospects? 

4.  What  are  the  causes,  if  any,  of  the  relative  weakness 
of  the  League  of  Nations  in  outlawing  and  preventing  war? 

5.  What  are  the  reasons  given  for  and  against  the  United 
States  becoming  a member  of  the  League?  Summarize  these 
reasons?  What  are  their  respective  merits? 

6.  Would  American  membership  in  the  League  strengthen 
it  as  a general  agent  for  world  peace? 

7.  Does  the  League  rely  on  the  sanctions  of  military  force 


to  secure  its  cohesion  and  to  enforce  its  judgments?  If 
not,  what  are  the  forces  that  are  making  it  effective? 

8.  Should  and  could  an  effective  and  universal  League  of 
Nations  rely  exclusively  on  public  opinion  and  mass  good- 
will, absolutely  refusing  the  use  of  military  force? 

9.  Has  your  church  or  communion  taken  any  action  deal- 
ing with  the  League  or  American  membership  therein? 

10.  Should  the  Churches  of  America  express  any  opinion 
on  the  desirability  of  the  United  States  joining  the  League? 

11.  If  they  should,  should  such  an  opinion  be  or  not  be 
qualified  by  specified  reservations?  If  so,  what  should  be 
the  reservations? 

12.  Should  the  Churches  of  America  express  any  judgment 
on  the  attitude  thus  far  taken  toward  the  League  of  Nations 
by  the  government  of  the  United  States?  If  so,  what? 

13.  Should  or  should  not  the  League  of  Nations  be  re- 
garded as  in  some  measure  expressing  the  Christian  ideal  of 
the  Kingdom  of  God?  In  either  case,  specify  reasons. 


[ 11  ] 


B.  The  Permanent  Court  of  International  Justice 


Through  the  activities  of  the  League  of  Nations  a 
plan  for  a World  Court  of  Justice  was  drafted  by 
the  leading  jurists  of  the  world,  one  of  whom  was 
an  American,  and  sent  to  the  nations  for  their  con- 
sideration. 

Forty-eight  nations  have  now  by  their  separate 
and  independent  ratifications  established  the  Court. 
It  rests  on  their  direct  authority  and  not  on  that 
of  the  League. 


Nearly  one-half  of  the  nations  have  accepted  its 
compulsory  jurisdiction  in  the  four  classes  of  diffi- 
culties that  are  recognized  by  international  jurists 
as  capable  of  judicial  settlement. 

The  United  States  Senate  voted  (January  27, 
1926),  76-17,  to  adhere  to  the  World  Court  Protocol 
with  five  reservations  and  two  resolutions.  The 
reservations  must  be  accepted  by  the  forty-eight 
member  nations  of  the  Court  before  we  shall  actually 
join  it. 


Questions 


1.  Does  the  World  Court  of  Justice  help  to  provide  a 
substitute  for  war?  How  and  to  what  degree? 

2.  Will  American  membership  strengthen  the  Court  as 
an  agent  for  settling  international  disputes?  In  what  ways? 

3.  Were  the  limiting  reservations  and  resolutions  really 
necessary?  Do  they  help  or  hinder  the  effectiveness  of 
the  Court? 

4.  Should  the  United  States  accept  its  compulsory  juris- 
diction in  all  justiciable  matters?  If  she  should  do  so  only 
on  certain  conditions,  what  should  these  conditions  be? 

5.  What  merit  is  there  in  the  contentions  that  the  Hague 

C.  The  Codification  of  International  Law 

Experience  shows  that  one  important  procedure  in 
the  establishment  of  peace  is  the  adoption  by  the 
nations  of  regular  principles  and  procedures  in  the 
conduct  of  their  affairs. 

A treaty  between  two  nations,  so  long  as  it  exists, 
constitutes  a law  by  which  to  regulate  their  conduct. 
General  treaties  adopted  by  groups  of  nations  con- 
stitute that  much  international  law  for  them. 

The  treaty  of  Versailles  constitutes  a great  body 
of  new  international  law  accepted  by  the  fifty-five 
nations  in  the  League.  Very  large  sections  of  that 
Treaty  were  also  mutually  adopted  by  the  United 
States  and  Germany. 

The  Covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations  forms  a 
new  basis  for  international  law  specifically  designed 
to  prevent  war  and  to  promote  world  peace. 


Court  of  Arbitration  is  better  than  the  Permanent  Court  of 
International  Justice?  That  the  World  Court  is  merely  the 
special  attorney  of  the  League  of  Nations?  That  the  Per- 
manent Court  cannot  be  a World  Court  unless  absolutely 
severed  from  the  League? 

6.  Summarize  reasons  given  for  and  against  American 
membership  in  the  World  Court.  What  are  their  respective 
merits? 

7.  Did  your  communion  take  any  official  action  regard- 
ing American  membership  in  the  World  Court?  If  not, 
why? 


During  the  past  five  years  nearly  nine  hundred 
treaties  between  two  or  more  Governments  have  been 
made  and  registered  with  the  League  of  Nations; 
these  constitute  an  enormous  body  of  international 
law. 

Various  Commissions  and  Committees  of  the 
League  are  constantly  drafting  new  codes  and  proto- 
cols, covering  specific  international  interests.  These 
become  international  law  to  the  extent  that  they  are 
ratified  by  the  nations.  The  League  of  Nations  has 
recently  instituted  a committee  of  international  jur- 
ists to  study  the  question  of  the  further  codification 
of  international  law  by  reducing  to  general  terms 
those  principles  and  procedures  which  are  already 
embodied  in  treaties  and  practice.  It  plans  thus  to 
promote  the  clarity  and  authority  of  international 
law  with  respect  to  the  matters  treated. 


Questions 


1.  To  what  degree  is  International  Law  codified  and 
available  for  the  use  of  the  World  Court  ? Does  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  ever  apply  International  Law? 

2.  Should  the  United  States  refuse  to  consider  a proposed 
general  treaty  merely  because  it  has  been  drafted  and  sent 
to  the  United  States  by  the  League? 

3.  Does  the  United  States  register  its  treaties  in  the  office 
of  the  League  of  Nations?  If  not,  why? 

4.  Should  the  United  States  summon  a convention  of  the 


nations  to  draft  a code  of  international  law?  In  either 
case,  why? 

5.  What  steps  might  the  Churches  take  to  promote  the 
enactment,  ratification  and  enforcement  of  international 
law? 

6.  Should  or  should  not  the  Churches  urge  our  Govern- 
ment to  ratify  the  League’s  proposed  “International  Conven- 
tions” or  treaties  for  the  “Suppression  of  the  Traffic  in 
Women  and  Children”  and  for  “the  Suppression  of  the  Cir- 
culation of  and  Traffic  in  Obscene  Literature”? 


[ 12  ] 


D.  Security  and  Disarmament 

The  maintenance  of  armaments  by  the  nations  is 
due,  in  the  opinion  of  many,  to  suspicion  and  fear. 
Each  believes  itself  to  be  insecure  and  liable  to 
invasion,  or  at  least  in  danger  of  having  its  rights 
violated  and  its  interests  ignored  unless  it  is  pre- 
pared to  fight.  Fear  creates  ever-growing  arma- 
ments and  growing  armaments  create  increasing  fear 
— a vicious  circle.  But  colossal  armaments  also  cre- 
ate serious  economic  difficulties  in  every  land.  They 
require  vast  expenditures  on  unproductive  enter- 


prises, to  the  loss  of  productive  industry;  they 
lower  the  standards  of  living  and  have  disastrous 
effects  on  every  national  interest. 

General  disarmament,  however,  on  any  extensive 
scale,  it  is  widely  asserted,  will  be  possible  only 
when  a general  sense  of  security  arises,  and  a sense 
of  security  will  be  possible  only  when  nations  learn 
to  settle  their  disputes  without  resort  to  war  or 
threat  of  war,  and  to  stand  together  against  a law- 
less nation. 


Questions 


1.  Should  or  should  not  the  United  States  cooperate  with 
the  other  nations  of  the  world  in  establishing  a world- 
system  for  the  peaceful  settlement  of  every  dispute? 

2.  Should  or  should  it  not  include  compulsory  arbitration? 
Economic  sanctions?  Military  sanctions?  In  each  case, 
why  ? Why  not  ? 

3.  Should  or  should  not  the  United  States  unite  with 
other  nations  in  assuring  security  to  the  peace-loving  and 
law-abiding  nations?  If  it  should,  by  what  methods? 

4.  How  can  the  United  States  best  help  all  nations  to 
unite  in  a program  for  universal  disarmament? 

E.  The  Outlawry  of  War 

Two  plans  for  abolishing  war  have  been  proposed. 

1.  The  Borah-Levinson  Plan  proposes  that  all 
nations  shall  first  adopt  a resolution  that  all  war 
is  illegitimate  and  criminal  (except  in  self-defense) ; 
that  the  nations  which  adopt  such  a resolution  shall 
appoint  representatives  to  a world  conference  to 
provide  for  the  codification  of  international  law; 
that,  when  this  code  has  been  adopted  by  the  na- 
tions, a World  Court  shall  be  established,  with  com- 
pulsory jurisdiction;  and  that  the  only  force  behind 
this  system  and  this  World  Court  shall  be  public 
opinion. 

2.  The  Geneva  Protocol  Plan  was  unanimously 
recommended  by  the  official  representatives  of  forty- 


5.  Can  the  other  nations  establish  a world-peace  system 
without  the  United  States?  If  so,  how?  If  not,  why? 

6.  In  the  absence  of  a world-peace  system,  how  can 
world  peace  be  assured?  Specify  plan. 

7.  What  would  be  the  probable  effect  of  another  world 
war?  Could  the  United  States  keep  out  of  it? 

8.  Do  or  do  not  the  geographical  position,  the  wealth, 
the  strength  and  the  moral  advancement  of  the  United 
States  place  upon  her  peculiar  responsibility  for  leadership 
and  even  for  sacrifice  in  these  matters?  Why? 

9.  What  duty,  if  any,  have  the  Churches  in  these  matters? 


eight  Governments  at  the  Assembly  of  the  League 
of  Nations  on  October  2,  1924.  It  proposes  that 
all  “aggressive  war”  be  declared  a crime;  that,  in 
case  a war  occurs,  the  proof  as  to  which  nation  is 
the  aggressor  shall  be  the  willingness  or  unwilling- 
ness of  the  nations  concerned  to  submit  the  case  for 
final  settlement  to  the  World  Court  of  Justice  or  to 
some  procedure  of  arbitration  described  in  the  Pro- 
tocol; and  that  all  the  Covenant-keeping  nations 
shall  come  to  the  defense  of  the  nation  attacked. 

On  the  basis  of  these  principles  and  procedures, 
elaborately  stated,  it  was  believed  that  the  nations 
would  soon  develop  a sense  of  security  and  a willing- 
ness to  adopt  general  plans  for  disarmament. 


Questions 


1.  Which  of  these  two  plans  to  outlaw  war  is  the  more 
practicable?  Give  reasons? 

2.  Should  or  should  not  the  United  States  cooperate  with 
other  nations  in  establishing  an  effective  system  to  outlaw 
war,  to  make  compulsory  the  peaceful  settlement  of  dis- 
putes and  to  bring  to  court  a law-breaking,  aggressor 
nation  ? 

3.  If  the  United  States  should  help  in  these  matters, 
should  that  help  be  limited  to  moral  support?  Or  should 


it,  if  necessary,  include  economic  pressure,  and,  in  extreme 
cases,  also  military  force? 

4.  Are  the  two  plans  mentioned  above  mutually  exclusive? 
If  they  are  more  or  less  in  agreement,  point  out  their  re- 
semblances and  their  differences. 

5.  Should  the  Churches  take  interest  in  these  matters  as 
vital  to  the  program  for  a warless  world?  Give  reasons  for 
and  against. 

6.  Has  your  church  expressed  its  mind  on  the  Outlawry 
of  War?  If  not,  should  or  should  it  not  do  so? 


IV.  Programs  for  Eliminating  the  Causes  of  War 

The  causes  of  war  are  many  and  subtle.  Practices  by  one  nation  or  by  the  citizens  of  one  nation  in  deal- 
ings abroad  oftentimes  quite  unconsciously  create  ill-will,  suspicion,  indignation,  fear,  wrath — in  a word, 
war-psychology.  Many  of  the  programs  for  abolishing  war  call  attention  to  these  “causes  of  war”  and  make 
concrete  proposals  for  their  removal.  A single,  brief  Syllabus  is  wholly  inadequate  for  dealing  with  all  the 
varied  social,  economic  and  political  factors  that  tend  to  produce  war  feelings.  Some  indication,  however, 

[ 13  ] 


of  their  character  and  scope  may  well  be  given  in  this  general  survey  of  proposals  for  the  abolition  of  war. 
They  deal  with  such  matters  as  the  following: 

1.  Foreign  markets  and  investments  promoted  and  protected  by  the  Flag 

2.  Monopolistic  national  control  of  raw  materials  essential  to  modern  industry 

3.  Pressure  of  population  on  food  supply  and  restriction  of  migration 

4.  A sensation-mongering,  jingo  press:  a press  directly  and  indirectly  controlled  by  big  munition  or  other 
financial  interests 

5.  Protective  and  differential  tariffs 

6.  Race  discriminatory  legislation 

7.  Oppressive  treatment  of  political  or  religious  minorities 

8.  Invasion  of  Oriental  and  primitive  peoples  by  Occidental  industrialism 

9.  “Unequal  treaties”,  “Extra-territoriality”  and  “Concessions”  in  China. 

In  connection  with  each  of  these  matters  many  programs  have  been  suggested  for  rectifying  the  wrongs 
and  promoting  the  right.  Are  these  matters  which  the  Churches  should  study  and  concerning  which  they 
should  advocate  definite  policies  and  procedures?  If  so,  how  can  they  deal  with  them  wisely  and  effectively? 
If  not,  what  prospect  is  there  of  really  abolishing  war? 


V.  Matters  Distinctively  American 

In  addition  to  the  general  problems  and  programs  suggested  above,  there  is  a group  of  questions  distinct- 
ively American.  What,  for  instance,  should  be  the  attitude  of  the  Churches  in  regard  to 

1.  The  proposal  to  make  Hawaii  the  most  powerful  naval  base  in  the  world,  the  “Gibraltar  of  the  Pacific” 

2.  The  proposal  to  build  great  naval  bases  at  San  Diego,  San  Francisco,  and  Puget  Sound 

3.  The  proposal  of  the  Army  to  increase  by  10,000  the  number  of  trained  soldiers  regularly  located  in  the 
Hawaiian  Islands 

4.  The  proposal  of  the  General  Staff  of  the  Army  to  have  an  annual  Muster  Day  for  the  entire  manhood 
of  the  nation — otherwise  named  Mobilization  or  Defense  Test  Day.  If  the  plan  is  wise,  what  day  should 
be  set  aside  for  the  purpose? 

5.  The  virtual  annexation  of  the  little  countries  of  the  Caribbean  under  the  aegis  of  the  “Monroe  Doctrine” 

6.  The  activities  of  the  Army  and  Navy  in  training  the  students  of  our  colleges,  universities  and  high 
schools  by  means  of  the  Reserve  Officers’  Training  Corps  and  the  Citizens’  Military  Training  Camps 

7.  The  tendency  in  Army  and  Navy  circles  and  in  the  so-called  “patriotic”  organizations  to  brand  as 

disloyal  all  who  do  not  actively  support  or  those  who  even  question  their  enlarging  plans  of  military  and 

naval  preparedness 

8.  The  proposal  to  remit  in  whole  or  in  part  the  war  debts  of  the  allies  to  the  United  States. 


Questions 


1.  Do  these  policies  and  proposals  help  or  hinder  the 
peace  program  of  the  World?  Or  do  they  have  no  relation 
to  it? 

2.  How  far,  if  at  all,  is  it  the  duty  of  the  Churches  to 
follow,  to  scrutinize,  and  either  to  accept  or  to  reject  the 
policies  of  the  General  Staff  of  the  Army  and  Navy? 

3.  Do  or  do  not  certain  propaganda  activities  of  the  Army 
and  the  instruction  given  in  the  Reserve  Officers’  Training 
Corps  and  the  Citizens’  Military  Training  Camps  tend  to 
militarize  the  minds  of  our  youth? 

4.  Should  military  training  in  “land  grant  colleges”  be 
compulsory  or  optional?  Are  students  who  refuse  to  take 
such  training  to  be  upheld,  or  condemned  as  “unpatriotic”? 

5.  Do  the  Defense  Test  and  Muster  Day  doings  of  the 
Army  increase  or  decrease  the  war  psychology  of  the  nation? 
What  effect  do  they  have  on  the  attitude  of  trust  in  or 
distrust  of  us,  on  the  part  of  other  nations? 

6.  Are  the  Churches  and  Christians  under  patriotic  obli- 
gations to  accept  in  obedient  silence  every  plan  proposed  by 


high  military  and  naval  officials?  If  not,  on  what  grounds 
and  to  what  extent  are  they  entitled  to  express  their  judg- 
ments? 

7.  Should  Congress  or  the  Departments  of  War  and  Navy 
be  guided  in  their  preparedness  plans  by  officially  expressed 
judgments  of  the  Churches?  If  so,  or  if  not,  on  what 
grounds? 

8.  Should  or  should  not  the  Churches  of  America  advocate 
the  dismantling  by  joint  agreements  between  the  United 
States,  Japan,  Great  Britain  and  other  countries  of  all 
fortifications  on  the  islands  of  the  Pacific,  in  order  to  have 
— as  on  the  United  States,  Canadian  frontier — freedom  from 
bristling  fortifications? 

9.  Should  or  should  not  the  Churches  oppose  actions  of 
our  Navy  or  of  Congress  tending  to  discredit  and  destroy 
the  Four  Power  Pact  for  Peace  in  the  Pacific? 

10.  Should  the  Churches  of  America  express  any  judg- 
ment regarding  the  war  debts  of  the  Allies  to  the  United 
States?  If  not,  why?  If  so,  what  should  it  be? 


[ 14  ] 


VI.  Miscellaneous  Questions 


1.  Did  the  action  of  Congress  in  over-riding  the 
recommendations  of  Secretary  Hughes  and  President 
Coolidge  regarding  the  Japanese  exclusion  question 
in  May,  1924,  help  or  hinder  peace  in  the  Pacific? 
Give  reasons  for  your  judgment. 

2.  Should  or  should  not  the  indignation  and  re- 
sentment of  Japanese,  Chinese  and  East  Indians,  due 
to  our  race  discriminatory  legislation,  which  they 
regard  as  insulting  and  humiliating  to  them,  cause 
us  to  modify  our  legislation? 

3.  Should  or  should  not  the  Churches  advocate 
the  practical  exclusion  of  Asiatic  immigration?  In 
either  case,  why?  Can  it  be  secured  by  laws  free 
from  racial  discrimination?  How? 

4.  Should  the  final  decision  in  regard  to  declar- 
ing war  be  left  to  the  people  themselves  by  a nation- 
al referendum?  Is  such  a procedure  practicable?  If 
so,  why?  If  not,  why? 

5.  Should  or  should  not  the  Churches  adopt  a 
policy  in  regard  to  chemical  or  disease-germ  war- 
fare? If  so,  what  should  it  be? 

6.  Do  or  do  not  huge  private  corporations  for 
the  manufacture  of  military  and  naval  munitions 
and  supplies  have  a sinister  influence  on  prepared- 
ness programs,  on  legislation,  on  international  poli- 
cies and  on  syndicated  news?  Should  the  Churches 
have  a declared  policy  in  regard  to  these  matters? 

7.  Do  or  do  not  the  colossal  economic  interests 
involved  in  the  existing  war-system  of  the  nations 
play  any  part  in  maintaining  this  war-system?  Spec- 
ify reasons  for  and  against. 

8.  What  attitude,  if  any,  should  the  Churches 
take  in  regard  to  the  private  manufacture  of  and 
foreign  trade  in  war  munitions? 


9.  What  attitude,  if  any,  should  the  Churches  of 
America  take  toward  the  Youth  Peace  Movement  of 
the  World? 

10.  What  duty,  if  any,  have  the  Churches  of 
America  regarding  China’s  demands  for  tariff  au- 
tonomy and  the  abolition  of  “unequal  treaties”  and 
“extra- territoriality  ” ? 

11.  Have  the  Churches  of  America  any  duty  re- 
garding the  essential  injustices  of  the  Versailles 
Treaty,  the  alleged  “sole  guilt”  of  Germany  for  the 
war,  and  the  “recognition”  of  Russia?  Are  there 
moral  aspects  of  these  issues  on  which  the  Churches 
should  express  their  judgment.  What  are  they? 

12.  Should  the  Churches  of  America  urge  Con- 
gress to  enact  a suitable  law  regarding  the  rights  of 
the  “Conscientious  Objector”,  of  whatever  commun- 
ion he  may  be  a member? 

13.  In  addition  to  the  many  definite  problems  and 
the  programs  for  their  solution  mentioned  in  the 
foregoing  pages,  are  there  still  others  which  the 
Churches  should  consider?  If  so,  name  them. 

14.  Among  the  many  proposals  for  action  looking 
toward  a warless  world,  which  are  the  most  impor- 
tant? Are  there  some  to  which  the  Churches  should 
give  immediate  attention?  Which? 

15.  If  the  Churches  are  to  take  any  real  part  in 
the  stupendous  program  of  outlawing  and  abolishing 
war,  can  they  be  satisfied  with  general  resolutions 
embodying  fine  sentiments  and  abstract  principles. 
If  they  should  do  more,  how  shall  they  proceed? 
How  secure  wise  leaders?  What  specific  courses  of 
action  should  they  adopt? 


Suggestive  Literature 


THE  CHRISTIAN  CRUSADE  FOR  A WARXjESS 
WORIiD,  Sidney  L.  Gulick;  1923;  Federal  Council  of  the 
Churches  of  Christ  in  America,  New  York. 

WORLD  MISSIONS  AND  WORLD  PEACE,  Caroline  At- 
water Mason;  1916;  Central  Committee,  West  Medford,  Mass. 

THE  MAZE  OF  THE  NATIONS  AND  THE  WAY  OUT, 

Gaius  Glenn  Atkins;  1915;  Fleming  H.  Revell  Company,  New 
York. 

LEAGUE  OR  W AS?,  Irving  Fisher;  1923;  Harper  and 
Brothers,  New  York. 

LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  YEAR  BOOK,  1925;  World  Peace 
Foundation,  Boston,  Mass. 

AMERICA’S  INTEREST  IN  WORLD  PEACE,  Irving 
Fisher;  1924;  Funk  and  Wagnalls  Company,  New  York. 

THE  TWO  HAGUE  CONFERENCES,  William  I.  Hull; 
1908;  Ginn  and  Company,  Boston,  Mass. 

THE  A B C’S  OF  DISARMAMENT  AND  THE  PACIFIC 
PROBLEMS,  Arthur  Bullard;  1921;  The  Macmillan  Com- 
pany, New  York. 

THE  WORLD  COURT,  Antonio  S.  de  Bustamente;  1925;  The 
Macmillan  Company,  New  York. 

THE  PERMANENT  COURT  OF  INTERNATIONAL 
JUSTICE  AND  THE  QUESTION  OF  AMERICAN 
PARTICIPATION,  Manley  O.  Hudson;  1925;  Harvard 
University  Press,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

[ 15 


WAYS  TO  PEACE,  TWENTY  FLANS  SUBMITTED  TO 
THE  AMERICAN  PEACE  AWARD,  Introduction  by 
Esther  Everett  Lape,  Preface  by  Edward  W.  Bok;  1924; 
Charles  Scribner’s  Sons,  New  York. 

THE  PREVENTION  OF  WAR,  Philip  Kerr  and  Lionel 
Curtis;  1923;  Yale  University  Press,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

THE  PROBLEM  OF  INTERNATIONAL  SANCTIONS, 

U.  Mitrany;  1925;  Oxford  University  Press,  England. 

CROSS  CURRENTS  IN  EUROPE  TODAY,  Charles  A. 
Beard;  1922;  Marshall  Jones  Company,  Boston,  Mass. 

EUROPE  TURNS  THE  CORNER,  Stanley  High;  1925;  The 
Abingdon  Press,  New  York. 

THE  RECENT  FOREIGN  POLICY  OF  THE  UNITED 
STATES,  George  H.  Blakeslee;  1925;  The  Abingdon  Press, 
New  York. 

THE  REAWAKENING  OF  THE  ORIENT,  Lectures  by 
Sir  Valentine  Chirol,  Yusuke  Tsurumi  and  Sir  James  Arthur 
Salter;  1925;  Yale  University  Press,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

ORIENTAL  INTERPRETATIONS  OF  THE  FAR  EAST- 
ERN PROBLEM,  Lectures  by  Count  Michimasa  Soyeshima 
and  President  P.  W.  Kuo;  1925;  Chicago  University  Press, 
Chicago,  111. 

SYLLABUS  ON  INTERNATIONAL  RELATIONS  (A 

full  compendium  of  books  and  magazine  articles  on  Inter- 
national Questions),  by  Parker  Thomas  Moon;  1925;  The 
Macmillan  Company,  New  York. 

] 


CHAPTER  III 

CHURCH  PROGRAMS  OF  EDUCATION  FOR  WORLD  PEACE 

It  is  important  that  each  Church  should  know  what  is  actually  being  done  to  educate  its  membership  and 
especially  the  young  people  in  its  Sunday  Schools,  academies  and  colleges  to  understand  world  problems  and 
to  work  constructively  for  world  peace. 

The  local  church  groups  in  each  communion  should,  therefore,  familiarize  themselves  with  the  facts  and 
also  consider  carefully  what  more  the  Churches,  both  national  and  local,  should  do. 


1.  Does  your  communion  have  an  officially  estab- 
lished committee,  commission  or  department  to 
which  is  assigned  the  specific  duty  of  promoting  an 
educational  program  on  peace  among  your  churches, 
Sunday  Schools  and  other  church  institutions?  If 
so,  when  was  the  action  taken,  who  are  those  re- 
sponsible, how  often  do  they  meet,  and,  in  brief, 
what  have  they  done? 

2.  Does  your  communion  provide  a budget  for 
this  peace  educational  program?  How  much?  Is 
it  enough  really  to  do  what  needs  to  be  done? 

3.  What  steps,  if  any,  have  been  taken  in  your 
communion  to  find  out  the  attitudes  of  children  and 
youth  which  may  be  regarded  as  favorable  or  un- 
favorable toward  securing  world  peace? 

4.  What  programs  of  training  are  in  operation 
to  counteract  undesirable  attitudes  and  to  create 
those  that  are  desirable? 

5.  Do  you  know  what  proportion  of  your  pastors 
and  churches  observed  Armistice  Sunday  (Novem- 
ber 8,  1925),  as  suggested  by  the  Federal  Council 
of  Churches? 

6.  Has  the  religious  press  of  your  communion 
made  any  special  efforts  to  inform  its  constituency  on 
the  world  problems  of  war  and  peace  and  on  the 
responsibilities  of  Christians  and  Churches  to  sup- 
port our  Government  in  its  efforts  to  adopt  Christian 
policies  in  international  relations?  Specify  instances. 


Suggestive 

THE  MESSAGE  TO  THE  CHTJBCHES  OF  THE  UNITED 
STATES— NATIONAL  STUDY  CONFERENCE  ON 
THE  CHURCHES  AND  WORLD  PEACE;  1925;  Con- 
tinuation Committee,  105  East  22nd  Street,  New  York. 

WHAT  PASTORS  AND  CHURCHES  CAN  DO  IN  THE 
CRUSADE  FOR  A WARLESS  WORLD;  1924;  Federal 
Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America,  New  York. 

A FIVE  POINT  PROGRAM  FOR  CHURCHES — WORK- 
ING FOR  A WARLESS  WORLD;  Federal  Council  of 
the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America,  New  York. 

MOBILIZING  FOR  PEACE,  Edited  by  Frederick  Lynch; 
1924;  Fleming  H.  Revell  Company,  New  York. 

BOOKS  OF  GOODWILL:  VOL.  I.  THROUGH  THE 
GATEWAY  (A  collection  of  Stories,  Poems,  Pageants,  Games, 
Projects  and  Prayers);  1925;  National  Council  for  Prevention 
of  War,  Washington,  D.  C. 


7.  Did  the  local  congregations  of  your  commun- 
ion taken  any  action  during  the  past  year  or  two 
regarding  adhesion  by  the  United  States  to  the  Per- 
manent Court  of  International  Justice?  If  so,  ap- 
proximately how  many?  Has  your  religious  press 
taken  interest  in  this  question  or  commended  it  to 
its  readers?  Name  the  editors. 

8.  Are  there  any  books  on  world  peace  questions 
which  have  had  special  popularity  in  your  commun- 
ion? Give  titles  and  authors. 

9.  Of  the  various  available  courses  on  peace  for 
study  groups  do  you  know  from  experience  of  ac- 
tual use  which  have  proved  most  acceptable?  Name 
them. 

10.  Has  your  communion  adopted  the  “Interna- 
tional Ideals  of  the  Churches”  as  suggested  by  the 
Federal  Council  of  Churches?  If  not,  was  this  due 
to  some  opposition  to  its  declarations  of  faith  and 
purpose?  Or  to  some  other  reason? 

11.  Has  your  church  adopted  the  “Five  Point 
Program”?  Can  it  really  do  what  it  should  without 
some  such  method? 

12.  In  case  replies  to  the  above  questions  are 
chiefly  negative,  must  we  conclude  that  the  pastors 
and  church  members  of  your  communion  are  in- 
different to  the  problems  of  war  and  peace?  Or  is 
there  some  other  explanation? 


Literature 

BRAVE  ADVENTURES  (Stories  for  Children),  Katharine 
S.  Cronk;  1925;  Central  Committee,  West  Medford,  Mass. 

WORLD  FRIENDSHIP  THROUGH  THE  CHURCH 
SCHOOL,  John  Leslie  Lobingier;  1923;  University  of  Chicago 
Press,  Chicago,  111. 

PROJECTS  IN  WORLD  FRIENDSHIP,  John  Leslie  Lo- 
bingier; 1925;  University  of  Chicago  Press,  Chicago,  III. 

“ON  EARTH  PEACE”,  Edited  by  Rhoda  McCulloch  and 
Margaret  Burton;  1925;  Federation  of  Women’s  Foreign 
Mission  Boards  and  the  Council  of  Women  for  Home  Missions, 
New  York. 

CHRISTIAN  FELLOWSHIP  AMONG  THE  NATIONS, 

Jerome  Davis  and  Roy  B.  Chamberlain;  1925;  Pilgrim  Press, 
Boston,  Mass. 

CHRISTIAN  YOUNG  PEOPLE  AND  WORLD-FRIEND- 
SHIP, Erwin  L.  Shaver;  1925;  University  of  Chicago  Press, 
Chicago,  111. 


